Foreign and Commonwealth Office

UK Membership of EU

Lord Kinnock: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the reply by Baroness Anelay of St Johns on 27 January (HL Deb, col 190), what were the successful negotiations undertaken by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with other European Union member states which are said to have achieved "some very positive results"; and in each case what were the issues relating to "our relationships with the European Union" which have been discussed and the proposals made by the United Kingdom in such discussions.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), has discussed our EU reform plans with 19 Member States as part of his EU programme of visits. He plans to visit the remaining Member States before the election. The Foreign Secretary has met a range of Presidents, Ministers of Government, Officials, and leaders from Civil Society and business. He has been clear on his desire to seek agreement with our colleagues in the EU on the details of proposed reforms, which will be developed in discussion with Member States in the coming months. In the Foreign Secretary’s discussions he has covered the full range of issues that this Government would like to see reformed in the EU; Fairness, Democratic Accountability, Competitiveness and Migrant Access to Benefits. The Foreign Secretary has found a renewed focus on the economic aspects of the reform agenda, recognition that much of the UK’s reform agenda is now part of EU thinking and the clear message that Member States want the UK to remain in the EU.

Department for International Development

Private Infrastructure Development Group

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the cost of travel for employees of the Private Infrastructure Development Group.

Baroness Northover: In 2012 an independent review was conducted which led to the approval of a stronger travel policy that is bench marked to comparable organisations.

Syria

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the number of refugees in the Za’atari refugee camp in Jordan who have been identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as being in need of resettlement.

Baroness Northover: The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) aims to identify 6,000 refugees in Jordan for potential resettlement in 2015. Cases are identified on the basis of vulnerability. Only 15% of Syrian refugees in Jordan actually reside in a camp, and therefore UNHCR anticipates that approximately 15% of the 6,000 resettlement cases planned for 2015 will come from the camps, the largest of which is Zaatari.

Palestinians

Baroness Tonge: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many children with life altering injuries from the recent conflict are receiving rehabilitation outside Gaza; how many are still within Gaza; and what rehabilitation facilities exist in Gaza following the bombing of Al Wafah hospital.

Baroness Northover: The Ministry of Health in Gaza reported 1,114 children with injuries leading to physical disabilities as a result of the Gaza conflict. Of these, 140 children were able to receive treatment outside of Gaza, while the remaining 974 have received treatment in Gaza. There are two rehabilitation facilities currently operating in Gaza; the Al Amal Centre and the Palestinian Red Crescent Centre.

West Africa: Ebola

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what lessons they have learned from the initial response to the ebola outbreak in West Africa.

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the response by the World Health Organisation to the ebola outbreak; and whether they consider that there is a need to develop a rapid response capability.

Baroness Northover: It is critical that we learn lessons from this crisis and DFID is already working with international partners to achieve the comprehensive global, regional and national systems that will be needed to respond efficiently to future public health emergencies.   We welcome the reforms announced at the WHO Special Session on 25 January which align with measures the Prime Minister proposed at the G20 meetings in Brisbane, including the establishment of a rapid response team. The UK has also announced an advance commitment of up to $10million as part of a contingency fund for future outbreaks and emergencies.

Burma

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent changes to the level of international aid and development support to Burma.

Baroness Northover: Aid from the international community to Burma is increasing both in volume and number of donors. For example, following the cancellation of Burma’s outstanding debt payments to the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, both are now starting to design and implement major programmes of support. As one of the few donors with a long established presence in Burma, DFID plays an important role in seeking to coordinate donors, co-chairing both the Development Partners Working Committee and the Development Partners Group, and playing a leading role in Myanmar Development Cooperation Forum on the 7-8 February 2015.

Burma

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much funding has been provided, directly or indirectly, towards assisting the government of Burma to reform education services in Burma.

Baroness Northover: The UK Government does not provide any funds directly to the government of Burma. DFID has provided £3million through UNICEF to improve the education system in Burma by increasing access and raising learning levels in government schools. This programme has funded teacher training, provided essential learning materials to pupils and funded technical inputs to the Burmese Ministry of Education’s evidence-based review of the education sector. UNICEF channels funds through project bank accounts and does not use government of Burma financial systems.

Burma

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what meetings have been held by the British Embassy in Rangoon with (1) the National Network for Education Reform in Burma, and (2) the Action Committee for Democratic Education.

Baroness Northover: The British Embassy and DFID officials, together with UNICEF and officials from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, met with a representative of the Education Seminar Initiative Group (ESIG) in 2012 to discuss plans for the Comprehensive Education Sector Review. The ESIG, together with the National League for Democracy Education Group, went on to set up the National Network for Education Reform in January 2013.

Natural Disasters

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the main humanitarian and technical objectives that they will be promoting at the forthcoming United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction to be held in Sendai, Japan in March 2015.

Baroness Northover: The UK is an active supporter of the current Hyogo framework. The Department for International Development (DFID) and Cabinet Office have a joint lead in shaping the Government’s policy and technical objectives ahead of the 3rd UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction to be held in Japan on 14-18 March, where a new post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction will be finalised. Negotiations are still on-going, and it will not be possible to confirm final outcomes until the meeting in Sendai itself.   The Government’s main objectives build on the priorities set out by the UK representative at the May 2013 Global Platform meeting in Geneva. These are:   A need for improved accountability. A key part of this is to support the development of robust and relevant targets and indicators.   To ensure disaster risk reduction is taken seriously in development efforts. We are doing this by working to ensure strong links between the post-2015 DRR framework and the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals and climate change agendas.   An increased focus on local and community level. For example, we are pushing hard to increase the accessibility of information so that communities themselves can understand and better manage the risks they face.   We have also placed great emphasis on the use of evidence-based decision-making in this area, drawing on the latest science.   The UK has engaged actively in the negotiation meetings on the successor to the Hyogo framework for action. In shaping its approach, the Government has drawn heavily on the UK’s own experience of disaster risk management, which has demonstrated the importance of a multi-agency and multi-sectoral approach.

Burma

Baroness Nye: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Burma regarding the reform of the National Education Law in that country.

Baroness Northover: DFID have not held any direct discussions with the Government of Burma regarding the reform of the National Education Law. A DFID official attended a briefing with the Burmese Minister of Education on the recent dialogue around the National Education Law on 9 February, but did not provide any comments. DFID’s Minister of State met with Burma’s Deputy Minister for Education in January and encouraged the government of Burma to consult widely on further rules relating to the National Education Law. DFID, together with other International Development Partners, has funded technical support for the Comprehensive Education Sector Review (CESR). This review has informed the development of the National Education Law.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Agriculture: Subsidies

Baroness Byford: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether farmers require a credit reference to apply for Common Agricultural Policy grants; and if so, what legislation applies and which organisation or body produces the reference.

Lord De Mauley: Farmers do not need to have a credit reference to apply for Common Agricultural Policy grants.   As part of the registration process on the new Rural Payment Service customers will need to complete a verification process to confirm their identity. This is to prevent any fraudulent activity. Although personal verification is a mandatory requirement for registration on the Rural Payment Service, a customer can choose whether they do this via the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) helpline or through GOV.UK VERIFY depending on their circumstances.   Customers can choose either to call the RPA helpline (on 0300 0200 301) and answer a series of security questions relating to previous claims, or use the new online GOV.UK VERIFY service, which will eventually replace Government Gateway. Customers can select a certified verification company from a list on GOV.UK VERIFY; there are currently two certified companies on the service, Experian and Digi-identity, and more companies will become available in the future. Both Experian and Digi-identity use an individual’s credit history to confirm their identity.

RSPCA

Lord Blencathra: To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the RSPCA, as a private organisation, is able to bring prosecutions but is not subject to independent inspection or Freedom of Information requests.

Lord De Mauley: The RSPCA is able to bring prosecutions under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 because that particular piece of legislation allows anyone to do so, even private individuals, if they have the necessary evidence to do so. The RSPCA is not a public authority and so is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Department for Communities and Local Government

Domestic Waste: Waste Disposal

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty’s Government which local authorities in England have taken part in the Weekly Collection Support Scheme; how many authorities took part in the expression of interest process; which have subsequently received financial support, and how much; and of those, which have reinstated weekly collections of general (“grey” or “residual”) waste, which have used the support to collect food waste separately, and which have used it in other ways.

Lord Ahmed: An error has been identified in the written answer given on 12 February 2015.The correct answer should have been:

In March 2012, my Department received initial expressions of interest from 151 lead local authorities, which resulted in bids from 113 local authorities. Some local authorities submitted multiple expressions of interest which were consolidated before final bid stage. The final bids were then assessed in line with the published criteria, and recipients then awarded funding.A detailed table listing the schemes that are being supported is attached and on my Department’s website. It may be helpful to the noble Lord to outline what this Government has delivered since 2010: Safeguarded weekly collections for 6 million households through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme as well as championing innovation and best practice; the answer of 14 May 2014, Official Report, House of Commons 646W, outlined how 14 million households in England have some form of weekly collection of smelly rubbish.  Issued the first ever Whitehall guidance on weekly bin collections, demolishing the myths that fortnightly bin collections are needed to save money or increase recycling. This best practice was directly informed by the Weekly Collections Support Scheme;  Supported over 40 innovative reward schemes to back recycling through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme (as pledged in the Coalition Agreement); the winning bids for a further Recycling Rewards Scheme for 2015-16 will be announced shortly;  Stopped the Audit Commission inspections which marked down councils who do not adopt fortnightly rubbish collections, and rejected the Audit Commission guidance which advocated fortnightly collections (“Waste Management: The Strategic Challenge and Waste Management Quick Guide”);  Abolished the Local Area Agreements and National Indicator 191 imposed by Whitehall which created perverse incentives to downgrade waste collection services;   Scrapped the Whitehall requirement for municipal Annual Efficiency Statements, which allowed a reduction in the frequency of a household rubbish collection service to qualify as a “valid efficiency” and allowed revenue from bin fines to classed as a “cashable efficiency gain”;   Scrapped the imposition of eco-towns which would have had fortnightly bin collections and/or bin taxes as part of the “eco-standards”;   Through the Localism Act, revoked the 2008 legislation that allowed for the imposition of new bin taxes;   Issued guidance to stop the imposition of illegal ‘backdoor bin charging’ on households bins;   Stopped funding the ‘Waste Improvement Network’ which told councils to adopt fortnightly collections as best practice;   Challenged the incorrect interpretation by some bodies that European Union directives require fortnightly collections, and resisted the imposition of bin taxes by the European Union;   Removing powers of entry and snooping powers from bin inspectors and scrapped guidance telling councils to rifle through families’ bins;   Changed building regulations and planning guidance to tackle ‘bin blight’, and worked with the NHBC Foundation to produce new best practice guidance for house builders;   Changing the law through the Deregulation Bill to scrap unfair bin fines.   Without our active support, Ministers are clear that weekly collections would have disappeared across England. This Government’s approach can be contrasted with the devolved Labour-led Administration in Wales, where fortnightly bin collections are official policy, and pilots of monthly bin collections are being actively encouraged.


List of Supported Schemes
(PDF Document, 2.05 MB)




List of Supported Schemes
(Excel SpreadSheet, 45 KB)

Lord Ahmed: In March 2012, my Department received initial expressions of interest from 151 lead local authorities, which resulted in bids from 113 local authorities. Some local authorities submitted multiple expressions of interest which were consolidated before final bid stage. The final bids were then assessed in line with the published criteria, and recipients then awarded funding.A detailed table listing the schemes that are being supported is attached and on my Department’s website. It may be helpful to the noble Lord to outline what this Government has delivered since 2010: Safeguarded weekly collections for 6 million households through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme as well as championing innovation and best practice; the answer of 14 May 2014, Official Report, House of Commons 646W, outlined how 14 million households in England have some form of weekly collection of smelly rubbish.  Issued the first ever Whitehall guidance on weekly bin collections, demolishing the myths that fortnightly bin collections are needed to save money or increase recycling. This best practice was directly informed by the Weekly Collections Support Scheme;  Supported over 40 innovative reward schemes to back recycling through the Weekly Collection Support Scheme (as pledged in the Coalition Agreement); the winning bids for a further Recycling Rewards Scheme for 2015-16 will be announced shortly;  Stopped the Audit Commission inspections which marked down councils who do not adopt fortnightly rubbish collections, and rejected the Audit Commission guidance which advocated fortnightly collections (“Waste Management: The Strategic Challenge and Waste Management Quick Guide”);  Abolished the Local Area Agreements and National Indicator 191 imposed by Whitehall which created perverse incentives to downgrade waste collection services;   Scrapped the Whitehall requirement for municipal Annual Efficiency Statements, which allowed a reduction in the frequency of a household rubbish collection service to qualify as a “valid efficiency” and allowed revenue from bin fines to classed as a “cashable efficiency gain”;   Scrapped the imposition of eco-towns which would have had fortnightly bin collections and/or bin taxes as part of the “eco-standards”;   Through the Localism Act, revoked the 2008 legislation that allowed for the imposition of new bin taxes;   Issued guidance to stop the imposition of illegal ‘backdoor bin charging’ on households bins;   Stopped funding the ‘Waste Improvement Network’ which told councils to adopt fortnightly collections as best practice;   Challenged the incorrect interpretation by some bodies that European Union directives require fortnightly collections, and resisted the imposition of bin taxes by the European Union;   Removing powers of entry and snooping powers from bin inspectors and scrapped guidance telling councils to rifle through families’ bins;   Changed building regulations and planning guidance to tackle ‘bin blight’, and worked with the NHBC Foundation to produce new best practice guidance for house builders;   Changing the law through the Deregulation Bill to scrap unfair bin fines.   Without our active support, Ministers are clear that weekly collections would have disappeared across England. This Government’s approach can be contrasted with the devolved Labour-led Administration in Wales, where fortnightly bin collections are official policy, and pilots of monthly bin collections are being actively encouraged.


List of Supported Schemes
(PDF Document, 2.05 MB)




List of Supported Schemes
(Excel SpreadSheet, 45 KB)

HM Treasury

Tobacco: Smuggling

Lord Palmer: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of links between terrorist organisations and the illicit tobacco market in the United Kingdom.

Lord Deighton: HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) currently has no direct evidence that profits from tobacco fraud fund any specific terrorist groups.   The joint HMRC/Border Force strategy to tackle tobacco smuggling has been successful in driving a consistent and sustained reduction in the illicit market in the UK, reducing the market share for illicit cigarettes by more than half and hand-rolling tobacco by one-third since 2000.   The latest tobacco anti-fraud strategy ‘Tackling Tobacco Smuggling – building on our successes’ was launched in April 2011. Its objective is to achieve further sustainable downward pressure on the illicit market in cigarettes through to 2015. A copy was placed in the House of Commons library at that time.   In 2013/14, HMRC referred 328 cases for prosecution and seized 1,437 million cigarettes and 330 tonnes of hand-rolling tobacco.

Banks: EU Action

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they consider proposals by the European Commission for regulations to allow the break-up of banks in the European Union to be in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

Lord Deighton: The Government considers that while structural reform provides substantial benefits even if applied at a national level, there may be arguments for unifying the objectives and standards of bank structural reform across the EU. Uniform objectives and standards reform could reduce the scope for regulatory arbitrage and help promote a level playing field for banking in the EU. Furthermore, the Government considers that the derogation clause and degree of supervisory discretion proposed would be sufficient to ensure that the subsidiarity principle is applied.

Economic and Monetary Union

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the suggestion by the Governor of the Bank of England that the Eurozone should pursue fiscal integration; and what they consider would be the implications for the United Kingdom and its membership of the European Union if such a policy were introduced.

Lord Deighton: The Treasury continually monitors economic developments in our trading partners as part of the normal policy process. The economic uncertainty that emanated from the euro area crisis had a chilling effect on the UK’s own recovery. The Chancellor has long made clear his view that there is a remorseless logic which means that the euro area, like any single currency, needs closer economic and fiscal integration to secure its future. At the same time, the UK Government has been clear that it will not be part of closer integration and will protect the interests of those outside the single currency, especially in relation to the Single Market.

Alcoholic Drinks: Excise Duties

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the estimated total loss to HM Treasury over the next five years as a direct result of ending the alcohol duty escalator in 2014.

Lord Deighton: Budget 2014 announced a cut in beer duty of 2 per cent, the freezing of duty rates on spirits and cider and the cancellation of the alcohol duty escalator for wine. The duty escalator for beer ended in 2013. The impact on alcohol revenues of the changes made at Budget 2014 were estimated as shown below[1]:2014-152015-162016-172017-182018-19Exchequer impact £m-290-295-305-315-325[1] Link to Budget 2014 document can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2014-documents

Cabinet Office

Iraq Committee of Inquiry

Lord Morris of Aberavon: To ask Her Majesty’s Government on how many days the Chilcot Inquiry sat in November and December 2014 and January 2015; and what is the current remuneration per day of the chairman and members, and the numbers and cost of supporting staff and accommodation.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The Inquiry is independent of Government. The daily payment rates for the Chair and Members of the Inquiry, plus details of the size and cost of the Inquiry’s secretariat and office accommodation, are published on the Inquiry’s website.

Department of Health

Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust

Lord Walton of Detchant: To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the acute adult dermatology service at Nottingham University Hospital is to be closed; and whether they have assessed the effect that that decision will have upon patients in the area affected by skin diseases.

Earl Howe: The provision of services, including dermatology services, is a matter for the local National Health Service.   The NHS Trust Development Authority advises that since 2 February 2015 Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust has not been able to provide a comprehensive adult dermatology service. It no longer has sufficient consultant dermatologist capacity to sustain such a service.   The Trust has worked with commissioners to ensure a satisfactory service is available to local people from alternative providers.   Rushcliffe Clinical Commissioning Group has commissioned a review to assess what is needed to meet the needs of the population in the future.